Talk:Direct Connect (file sharing)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Protocol?
It seems that a lot of things have been put into the separate NMDC/DC++ articles, and that the parts specific to those should be moved off this page. What should go here, then? Maybe a basic description of the protocol? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.177.150 (talk • contribs) 15:39, December 7, 2004 (UTC)
Also, should we use DC_plus_plus or DCPlusPlus for the DC++ article name? the executable is named the latter, but C++ uses the former naming scheme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PseudonympH (talk • contribs) 16:21, December 7, 2004 (UTC)
67.171.11.171 removed "unsupported, unecessary sentences regarding the "record" for number of users on a DC hub" from the article. I was just wondering, that in which way are such user records "unecessary"? There are articles about all kinds of stuff, even weird fish species on Wikipedia. I don't think it is NECESSARY for anyone to know the average size of a damn fish, but some people might find this information interesting. The same could be applied to this article. Even though it isnt NECESSARY for anyone to know the highest amount of users ever fitted in a dc hub, many will find it interesting. Unsupported cannot really be said, because as said, there were around 14 000 people in the hub, and as such, many of them must have seen how many users there were in the hub, and if found, could probably support this record. Also, this hub was discussed on the hublist.org chat hub, and many of the people from there went to the record hub. If we thought that all of these people could be lying, we could as well remove the World War II article from Wikipedia, giving "100% of the witnesses were lying". Therefore, I propose adding the user records, and other information people could find interestring, to this article. -meh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HJV (talk • contribs) 20:20, April 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] More Info Needed
What's so great about the DC protocol? Is it secure? Does it do automatic CRC checking of files? How do download/upload queues work? Anything special? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.169.172 (talk • contribs) 23:44, June 16, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I added some information on the weaknesses of the direct connect protocol. Also, removed some unneccesary NPOV attempts relating to the featuresets of the alternatives to the official client. No one questions that the alternatives are generally more featured. The OSS versions were made _because_ the official client was slow to add features and fix bugs.
I'm not badmouthing the protocol unfairly. I've programmed for it, and it sucks. I didn't say that, but did point out things that are objectively wrong with it.
In my opinion, this should not be merged with neo modus direct connect entry, as there is too much general information on alternative clients, protocol issues and the DC "scene" to lump all that with NMDC. The official client is basically on the way out, and the eventual replacement of the protocol with the DC++ protocol is going to wipe it out if Hess doesn't redo the official client from the ground up to support these new features.
Laters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.81.22.227 (talk • contribs) 16:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
I'm against the merge. Direct connect file-sharing application is pretty much used as a blanket for DC incarnations... whereas NeoModus is the original... but now, not nearly the most popular. I think mergins ia bad. gren グレン 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Well I merged Direct Connect network into this article. I reworded a lot of it and added headings, so I hope nothing got lost on the way. The title Direct connect file-sharing application doesn't seem right to me. Maybe its too long or too specific. Perhaps it should be something like Direct Connect (file sharing). —Vadmium 11:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Belonging
85.179.26.170 wrote " Due to the centralized nature of Direct Connect, some doubt that the protocol belongs to the P2P family.". Who are these "some"? Source for that claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ullner (talk • contribs) 04:25, September 3, 2006 (UTC)
- The Peer-to-Peer article defines P2P to be the same as what I'd call decentralized file sharing algorithms. I was around when Napster rose to popularity, and I made no centralized/decentralized judgement to consider a given network P2P. Even so, the P2P article itself mentions "hybrid P2P", which DC is (since the independent servers are akin to those used in Napster or eDonkey 2000). I don't think that sentence fits with how Wikipedia defines P2P, so I'm removing it. --GargoyleMT 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That had bothered me for a while. The fact that it continues to run, long after the demise of neo-modus.com attest to the fact that it is definitely 'hybrid-p2p'. Thanks GargoyleMT. Jon H ;). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.189.131 (talk • contribs) 05:43, November 30, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Protocol Section
The section on the protocol doesn't mention anything specific about the protocol. Instead, it describes some of it's inefficiencies, and basically recommends an alternative. I feel that the section should be removed, renamed, or substatially altered. Hotdogger 23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. --GargoyleMT 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
